Dealing with Doctrinal Doubts

2 Peter 3:1–7 (NKJV) — 1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Introduction:

Deism

Deism (derived from Latin “deus” meaning “god“) is a philosophical belief that posits that God exists as an uncaused First Cause ultimately responsible for the creation of the universe, but does not interfere directly with the created world. Equivalently, deism can also be defined as the view which posits God’s existence as the cause of all things, and admits its perfection (and usually the existence of natural law and Providence) but rejects divine revelation or direct intervention of God in the universe by miracles. It also rejects revelation as a source of religious knowledge and asserts that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator or absolute principle of the universe. (The Lexham Bible Dictionary)

The history of deism

In his "Autobiography" Franklin wrote that as a young man "Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."[44][45] Like some other Deists, Franklin believed that, "The Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc'd in the Course of Nature, or by the Free Agency of Man,"[46] and stated at the Constitutional Convention that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth— that God governs in the affairs of men."[47]

Thomas Jefferson is perhaps the Founding Father who most clearly exhibits Deistic tendencies, although he generally referred to himself as a Unitarian rather than a Deist. His excerpts of the Biblical gospels, for example, now commonly known as the Jefferson Bible, strips all supernatural and dogmatic references from the Christ story. Like Franklin, Jefferson believed in God's continuing activity in human affairs.[48]

Thomas Paine is especially noteworthy both for his contributions to the cause of the American Revolution and his writings in defense of Deism alongside the criticism of Abrahamic religions.[49][50] In The Age of Reason (1793–1794) and other writings he advocated Deism, promoted reason and freethought, and argued against institutionalized religions in general and the Christian doctrine in particular.[50] The Age of Reason was short, readable, and is probably the only Deistic treatise that continues to be read, and to be influential, today.[51]

The problem of erosion

Background:

A new section is clearly marked in terms of both content and structure. Peter’s long discussion on the false teachers (chap. 2) concludes, and he turns afresh to his readers. The new section is introduced with the affectionate words “dear friends” (agapētoi), better rendered “beloved.” The purpose of the second letter is to arouse the readers from lethargic thinking and to remind them of the words of the Old Testament prophets and the command, that is, the moral requirements of Jesus Christ—as these commands have been transmitted by the apostles. The particular reason the readers were to remember such teachings is explained in vv. 3–4. Peter reminded them that the arrival of mockers in the last days was prophesied. Hence, their immoral lifestyle and their rejection of the Lord’s coming should occasion no surprise. The arrival of the false teachers fulfilled predictions that must come to pass before the Lord returns. The opponents rejected the second coming, arguing that from the beginning of time (i.e., since the time of the patriarchs) history continues without cosmic interventions from God. Peter had a three-pronged argument against this view in vv. 5–7. First, the very creation of the world represents God’s intervention in the world. The opponents had failed to see the implications of their own view, for by appealing to creation they concurred that there was a beginning, a time when God brought the world into being. Second, the opponents might object that God set the world in motion but did not intervene cosmologically thereafter. But such a view does not account for the flood, which involved a cataclysm for the entire world. Third, history will end with a great conflagration, when the present heavens and earth will be burned, and the ungodly will be judged.1

Proposition: We must deal with doctrinal problems.

Interrogative: How do we deal with doctrinal problems?

I. We must be attentive to the problem of false doctrine(3:1-3)

2 Peter 3:1–7 (NKJV) — 1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,

A. The Objective: I stir up your pure minds by way of a reminder - 1

Stir Up

2 Peter 1:13 (NKJV) — 13 Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you,

Mark 4:38 (NKJV) — 38 But He was in the stern, asleep on a pillow. And they awoke Him and said to Him, “Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?”

2. Your Pure Minds

pure, sincere

Mind: disposition, intention

3. By way of a reminder

3:1 The words “dear friends” mark a transition in the letter. The NIV translation is too weak since the term is “beloved” (agapētoi, cf. also 3:14, 17). “Beloved” signifies that the readers were the recipients of God’s saving love and perhaps also communicates Peter’s tender concern for his readers. Peter remarked that he wrote his second letter to the readers. Scholars have postulated at least four different possibilities regarding the first letter. (1) Some think 2 Peter is not a unity, that its present composition stitches together more than one letter. McNamara, for example, argues that chap. 1 is the first letter, and chap. 3 is subsequent to the letter composed in chap. 1.2 There is no textual evidence, however, for any partition theory in 2 Peter. The letter has come down to us as a unity. The transition in chap. 3 to a new subject is not surprising in a letter; in fact, chap. 3 continues to refer to the opponents criticized in chap. 2. (2) Other scholars have suggested that the first letter was Jude and the second one is 2 Peter.3 Such a view would hardly be apparent to the readers since Peter wrote in his name, while Jude wrote under his.4 How could the readers possibly recognize both letters as Peter’s when they have different names on them? Furthermore, it is difficult to explain, if this theory is correct, why Peter would change the wording of Jude. (3) More plausible is the idea that Peter wrote another letter that has since been lost.5 We know that Paul wrote letters that were lost (cf. 1 Cor 5:9), and most scholars believe that he wrote a severe letter that also has been lost (2 Cor 7:8). Furthermore, Paul wrote a letter to the Laodiceans (Col 4:16) that has perished. Peter may have written other letters that have not survived as well.6 This theory is certainly a possibility, and it may be the best answer. It appeals, however, to correspondence that has never been found and isn’t mentioned elsewhere. Hence, I think the fourth option is still preferable. (4) Peter referred to 1 Peter. This is still the majority view among commentators.7 The main objection to this view is the content of 1 Peter. Peter seems to have known his readers well in 2 Peter, but the same kind of knowledge is not apparent in 1 Peter. This argument is not particularly compelling. In fact, the degree of Peter’s experience with the readers is not readily apparent from either letter. A more significant objection is that 1 Peter does not seem to be a call for “pure thinking.” But perhaps we have failed to see the parallel with 1 Peter here. In his first exhortation to his readers he said, “Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed” (1 Pet 1:13). Peter used the same word for “mind” (dianoia) as we find in 2 Pet 3:1. In addition, from our commentary on 1 Peter in the first part of this volume, it is evident that eschatology is central for the entire book, and the adversaries in 2 Peter denied the eschatological judgment and the coming of the Lord. But in 1 Peter the readers were exhorted to fix their hope on the eschatological coming of Christ. Indeed, all of the exhortations in 1 Peter flow from 1:3–12, where eschatology takes center stage. So we could summarize the argument of 1 Peter in such a way that he encouraged his readers to right thinking in light of the eschaton. The parallels between 1 and 2 Peter are closer than many scholars concede. I conclude that 1 Peter is the letter referred to here.

Peter returned to the theme of 1:12–15, namely, that he wrote to arouse the readers’ “wholesome thinking” by means of reminders. The adjective “wholesome” (eilikrinē) signifies that which is pure, right, and good. Believers need reminders about the truths they already know and accept precisely because such reminders, though including the mind, address the whole person. In biblical thinking reminders grip the whole person, so that we are possessed again by the gospel and its truth, so that we are energized to live for the glory of God.

B. Purpose #1: That you may be remember the truth revealed - 2

1. of the words which were spoken before by the Holy Prophets

Luke 24:44 (NKJV) — 44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

2. and of the commandment of us,

a. the apostles

b. of the Lord and Savior

John 16:7–14 (NKJV) — 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. 12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.

3:2 In v. 2 Peter specified what he wanted them to remember. The NIV actually masks the relationship between the two verses, for the verb “recall” in v. 2 is a purpose infinitive (mnēsthēnai), modifying the verb “stimulate” in v. 1. The NRSV translates the connection well, “I am trying to arouse … that you should remember.” Peter wanted to stimulate their thinking so that they would recall what they were previously taught and not fall prey to the new-fangled ideas of the false teachers. More specifically, he wanted them to remember the words of the prophets and the apostles. Jude (v. 17) had a similar idea, but he omitted any mention of the prophets. What Peter said here, however, reaches back to the conclusion of chap. 1. There Peter appealed to apostolic (1:16–18) and prophetic (1:19–21) testimony to verify the future coming of the Lord. He circled back to the prophets and the apostles, reversing the order here, and picked up his argument from the end of chap. 1. We saw in chap. 2 the false path and teaching promulgated by the opponents, which Peter exhorted them to avoid. Here the readers were reminded to return to the teaching of the prophets and the apostles so that their teaching, especially about the culmination of history, would not be forgotten. The parallel with 1:16–21 and the order in which prophets and apostles occur indicate that Old Testament prophets were in view here, not New Testament prophets.8 What words from the Old Testament prophets did Peter have in mind? In light of 2 Peter as a whole, he likely thought of those prophecies that referred to the end of history, the day of judgment and salvation.9 The Old Testament prophets often spoke of the day of the Lord, and because of the arrival of that day, they exhorted readers to live godly lives.

The syntax of the part of the verse relating to the apostles is quite difficult in Greek. Genitives are piled up, but they are not easy to disentangle, so that the Greek is rather rough. The NIV smooths out the text and captures its meaning well: “The command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.”10 Peter wanted to emphasize that the commands of the apostles actually represented the words of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.11 The point is that the words of Jesus Christ had been transmitted by the apostles. The word “command” (entolēs; cf. 2:21) probably is collective, using a singular to denote the moral norms incumbent upon believers.12 The moral standard for believers, according to Peter, was summed up in the teaching of Jesus Christ himself. The false teachers, on the other hand, were notorious for their dissolute lifestyle. The terms “Lord and Savior” (tou kyriou kai sōtēros) have one Greek article, indicating (cf. 1:1) that the same person, Jesus Christ, is in view.

The phrase “your apostles” has elicited discussion. Some scholars argue that this is clear evidence that the letter is not by Peter.13 The author, according to this view, saw all of the apostles as belonging to the church addressed. It is unlikely, however, that the phrase should be read in such a way. Second Peter is not a general letter that lacks specific recipients. Peter addressed the particular circumstances of his readers. The phrase “your apostles,” therefore, represents the particular apostles who evangelized and taught the churches receiving this letter.14 Neither did Peter necessarily exclude himself from their number. He may have been included in the plural “apostles.”

C. Purpose #2: Awareness of the reality of false doctrine: - 3

1. Knowing this first

2. That scoffers will come in the last days

Genesis 49:1 (NKJV) — 1 And Jacob called his sons and said, “Gather together, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days:

Isaiah 2:2 (NKJV) — 2 Now it shall come to pass in the latter days That the mountain of the Lord’s house Shall be established on the top of the mountains, And shall be exalted above the hills; And all nations shall flow to it.

Jeremiah 23:20 (NKJV) — 20 The anger of the Lord will not turn back Until He has executed and performed the thoughts of His heart. In the latter days you will understand it perfectly.

Jeremiah 25:19 (NKJV) — 19 Pharaoh king of Egypt, his servants, his princes, and all his people;

Jeremiah 37:21 (NKJV) — 21 Then Zedekiah the king commanded that they should commit Jeremiah to the court of the prison, and that they should give him daily a piece of bread from the bakers’ street, until all the bread in the city was gone. Thus Jeremiah remained in the court of the prison.

Ezekiel 38:16 (NKJV) — 16 You will come up against My people Israel like a cloud, to cover the land. It will be in the latter days that I will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me, when I am hallowed in you, O Gog, before their eyes.”

Daniel 2:28 (NKJV) — 28 But there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days. Your dream, and the visions of your head upon your bed, were these:

Hosea 3:5 (NKJV) — 5 Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days.

Micah 4:1 (NKJV) — 1 Now it shall come to pass in the latter days That the mountain of the Lord’s house Shall be established on the top of the mountains, And shall be exalted above the hills; And peoples shall flow to it.

Acts 2:17 (NKJV) — 17 ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams.

2 Timothy 3:1 (NKJV) — 1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come:

Hebrews 1:2 (NKJV) — 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

James 5:3 (NKJV) — 3 Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days.

Matthew 24:3–4 (NKJV) — 3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” 4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you.

Matthew 24:11 (NKJV) — 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.

3. Walking according to their own lusts - cf. chapter 2

3:3 Verses 3–4 explain why the readers were to remember the words of the prophets and the commands of the apostles. The nominative participle “knowing” (NKJV, ginōskontes, NIV “you must understand”) is awkward in Greek, for we expect an accusative.15 It probably should be understood as giving a reason why the readers should remember what they were taught. They should have known, after all, that the arrival of mockers was prophesied for the last days. The presence of those who doubt the coming of Christ functions as evidence that his coming is near.16 The phrase “the last days” (eschatōn tōn hēmerōn) is rather common in the Scriptures (LXX Gen 49:1; Isa 2:2; Jer 23:20; 25:19; 37:24; Ezek 38:16; Dan 2:28; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1; Acts 2:17; 2 Tim 3:1; Heb 1:2; Jas 5:3; cf. Jude 18). New Testament writers emphasized that the last days had arrived in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see esp. Acts 2:17; Heb 1:2). Hence, there is no suggestion that the prophecy recorded here was still unfulfilled. Peter believed it was fulfilled in the false teachers that had arrived in the churches he addressed. We see the same phenomenon in 1 Tim 4:1–5; 2 Tim 3:1–9; and Jude 18. Paul himself prophesied that false shepherds would arise among the flock (Acts 20:29–30). Jesus also predicted that false prophets would emerge (Matt 24:3–4, 11).17 The future form does not rule out Petrine authorship of the letter, nor does it constitute a clear hint that the letter was not written by Peter. The words “scoffers … scoffing” represent the Greek (en empaigmonē empaiktai), and the construction is a semitism (cf. Luke 22:15). The reference to their scoffing elicits the negative things said about the teachers in chap. 2. When Peter noted that they followed their own desires, we are again reminded of the criticisms of chap. 2. The false teachers were not constrained by any moral standards. They were libertines who lived to satisfy their own selfish desires; and so before we hear the content of their teaching in v. 4, we are prepared to dismiss their perspective, since the false teachers were mockers and licentious.18

Application:

Transition:

II. We must understand errant teaching (3:4)

4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

A. The Question: Where is the promise of His coming?

Jeremiah 17:15 (NKJV) — 15 Indeed they say to me, “Where is the word of the Lord? Let it come now!”

Malachi 2:17 (NKJV) — 17 You have wearied the Lord with your words; “Yet you say, “In what way have we wearied Him?” In that you say, “Everyone who does evil Is good in the sight of the Lord, And He delights in them,” Or, “Where is the God of justice?”

B. The False Argument: For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.

For since the fathers fell asleep

All tings continue as they were

From the beginning

This is an argument against divine intervention in the world.

They argued that creation has a continuity apart from intervention.

Application:

This is prevalent in our day. God is relegated to a religion that is disassociated from reality.

2. Deism

3:4 The content of the scoffers’ teaching is now recorded. Presumably Peter put in his own words their teaching, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised?” The term “coming” (parousia) refers (see commentary under 1:16) to the future coming of Jesus Christ. Expressions with the phrase “Where is …” reflect skepticism about the content contained in the question. Jeremiah’s critics mocked him by saying: “Where is the word of the Lord? Let it now be fulfilled!” (Jer 17:15). The Israelites in Malachi’s day fatigued the Lord when they said, “Where is the God of justice?” (Mal 2:17; cf. also Pss 79:10; 115:2; Joel 2:17; Mic 7:10). Their skepticism parallels God’s people in Ezekiel’s day, for they doubted that the judgment promised would come, saying, “The days go by and every vision comes to nothing” (Ezek 12:22).

Verse 4b records the reason (“for,” omitted by NIV) they doubted the future coming of Christ. They argued that since the death of the patriarchs, God had not intervened in the world. Indeed, from the beginning of creation the world has progressed with an order and regularity that forbids us to look for something dramatic like a future coming of Christ. We can add another thought to the previous one. If Christ will not come in the future, neither will there be a future judgment.

We have summarized the basic meaning of the verse, but controversy exists over some of the details. The NIV rightly translates the Greek phrase aph hēs temporally (“ever since,” cf. Luke 7:45; Acts 20:18; 24:11). The NIV says the fathers “died,” but the literal word is “slept” (ekoimēthēsan). Surely the word “sleep” is a metaphor for death here, but Moo interestingly observes that the term is reserved only for believers who die (Matt 27:52; John 11:11–12; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Cor 7:39; 11:30; 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Thess 4:13–15). Perhaps this is an indication that the metaphor was not a dead one, that it signaled to the readers not soul sleep but the notion that death is temporary.19 The most important word in this verse is “fathers” (pateres). Many commentators argue that it refers to Christian believers of the first generations, and if this is the case, then the author could not be Peter since he was a member of the first generation.20 But there is a decisive objection against this interpretation.21 The plural “fathers” never refers to the first generations of Christians in the New Testament, but it always refers to the patriarchs of the Old Testament (e.g., Matt 23:30, 32; Luke 1:55, 72; 6:23, 26; 11:47; John 4:20; 6:31, 49, 58; 7:22; Acts 3:13, 25; 5:30; 7:2, 11–12, 15, 19, 32, 38–39, 44–45, 51–52; 13:17, 32, 36; 15:10; 22:1, 14; 26:6; 28:25; Rom 11:28; 15:8; 1 Cor 10:1; Heb 1:1; 3:9; 8:9).22 Furthermore, there are hundreds of verses in the Old Testament where “fathers” refers to the patriarchs. Another piece of evidence points toward fathers referring to the Old Testament patriarchs. The term “fathers” overlaps with the phrase “since the beginning of creation.” The two phrases are not synonymous of course. But both phrases point to the regularity of life for a long time, whether from the time God created the world or from the time the patriarchs walked the earth.

Bauckham argues that Peter referred to the first Christian generation, but he admits that defining the “fathers” as the first Christian generation “is unattested elsewhere” and that “2 Peter seems to be unique in the literature of the first two Christian centuries in referring to the first Christian generation as ‘the fathers.’ ”23 I would simply respond by saying that these comments demonstrate that his view flies in the face of the lexical evidence and strengthens the idea that Peter referred to the Old Testament patriarchs.24 Bauckham objects that the opponents could not have said that all things remain from the time of the patriarchs since Jesus Christ’s arrival fulfills many Old Testament prophecies.25 Hence, they must have said that all things have remained the same since the coming of Christ. The objection is not compelling.26 First, we must beware of overconfidence in sketching in what the false teachers said. Unfortunately, our knowledge of them, despite the contents of 2 Peter, is rather scanty. Second, the opponents may have accepted the fulfillment of prophecy but argued for continuity in this world. It is possible that they saw fulfillments soteriologically while denying that there had ever been any changes cosmologically. Third, the phrase “since the beginning of creation” indicates that their argument did reach back past the first generation of Christians to the beginning of the world. This confirms the suggestion that they argued against cosmological changes.

In saying that “everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation,” Peter paraphrased the cosmological worldview of the teachers.27 Soteriological prophecies may have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, but the physical world had been stable from the time the world was created. Scholars sometimes have seen in the view of the scoffers the Aristotelian view that the world is eternal.28 But all the text demands is that they argue against any divine intervention in the world, that the regularity of the world’s order is such that postulating sudden irruptions is fanciful.29

Transition:

III. We must identify the reason for errant teaching (3:5-7)

5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,

6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

A. Preliminary Considerations

They were willingly forgetting

Creation and the Flood

The Agent: God’s Word

The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude C. Conclusions about the Day of the Lord (3:1–13)

The part of biblical history that they are forgetting is the narrative of creation and the flood. First comes creation. The time is “long ago.” The agent is God’s word, which should not surprise us since Gen 1:3–30 repeatedly says, “And God said,” and then notes that the event happened. This theme is picked up in Ps 33:6 (“By the word of the Lord were the heavens made …”); 148:5; Wisd 9:1 (“O God … who has made all things by your word”); Heb 11:3 (“the universe was formed at God’s command” [NIV] or “the worlds were prepared by the word of God” [NRSV]); and numerous other Jewish and Christian writers stretching out into the second century. Indeed, as Neyrey points out, in Philo’s world creative power was seen as one of God’s two powers, the other one being executive power, the authority to rule and judge, which we will encounter in our next verse.20 In other words, our author is defending the orthodox doctrine of God, as it was expressed in his day.

Peter emphasized here that the original creation was formed and took shape by God’s word. Dependence on Genesis is obvious since again and again the creation is due to what “God said” (Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 29). The theme is common elsewhere in the Old Testament as well. “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth” (Ps 33:6; cf. Prov 8:27–29; Heb 11:3; and in the postbiblical tradition, Sir 39:17; Wis 9:1; 4 Ezra 6:38, 43).

The Bible Exposition Commentary Chapter Six: Scoffing at the Scoffers (2 Peter 3:1–10)

God created the heavens and the earth by His word. The phrase “and God said” occurs nine times in Genesis 1. “For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Ps. 33:9). Not only was Creation made by the word of God, but it was held together by that same word. Kenneth Wuest translates 2 Peter 3:5 to bring out this subtle meaning: “For concerning this they willfully forget that heavens existed from ancient times, and land [standing] out of water, and by means of water cohering by the word of God.”

B. The Arguments Refuting False Doctrine

1. Argument #1 - Arguments from Creation

Refuting the Continuity argument: God used water in creation differently than he used water in the flood - 5

We have already noted that in Genesis 1 a watery chaos covers the earth, making life impossible for human beings. In creating the world, God separated the waters by making the expanse of the sky so that the waters were above and below the expanse (Gen 1:6–8). Furthermore, the waters on earth were collected so that dry ground would also exist (Gen 1:9–10). Hence, when Peter said that the world was created “out of water” (ex hydatos), he probably had in mind the emergence of the earth and sky from these waters. Discerning what he meant by the world being formed “by water” (di hydatos) is more difficult. Some think he referred to the rain by which the earth is sustained.33 Peter, however, referred to the creation of the world, not how it keeps going, and so we should reject this idea. Others understand dia locally, so that the idea is that the world was formed in the midst of the waters.34 This is a possibility but represents an unusual definition for the preposition. We should settle, then, for the third option, which is that God used the water as an instrument in forming the world.35 Perhaps Peter stressed water for rhetorical purposes since it is the agent of judgment in the next verse.

3:5 The basic meaning of this verse is clear, but the details become murky because the syntax is complicated and unclear. We will begin, therefore, by summarizing how the verse contributes to the argument. Peter gave three arguments against the scoffers, refuting their notion that God does not intervene in the world. His first argument shows an internal flaw in the scoffers’ worldview. They claimed continuity since creation, but the creation of the world itself represents divine intervention. When they spoke of “creation,” they referred to a new work of God. Further, when we read Genesis carefully, it is apparent that the world was chaotic (Gen 1:2) before God made it habitable for human life. The present stability of the world can be traced back to God’s intervention, and hence there is no reason to doubt that he will intervene again.

Now some of the details in the verse will be examined. The first phrase “they deliberately forget” (lanthanei gar autous touto thelontas) stresses the self-will of the mockers if we follow the NIV. The translation proposed by the NIV (cf. also KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV), however, is unlikely. Syntactically, it makes more sense if the word “this” (touto) is the object of theolontas. The term thelō can be translated “maintain.”30 Hence, the translation of the NASB should be accepted here, “For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice.” The word “this” refers back to the contents of v. 4, showing that they forgot something crucial when they maintained that God does not intervene cosmologically. Peter emphasized in vv. 1–2 that his readers should remember God’s words transmitted by the prophets and apostles. Now we are told that one of the major problems with the scoffers was that they forgot some important truths in defending their own view.

Peter likely taught in this verse both that the heavens came into existence long ago and that the earth coheres by God’s word. Such an interpretation is attractive syntactically, for in reading the Greek we could place the word “heavens” with the verb “existed” (ēsan) and “earth” with the participle “formed” (synestōsa). The NIV represents this view, “Long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.”31 The initial creation of the universe was in Peter’s purview, showing that God has intervened in the world. Even though the scoffers apparently concurred with creation (see v. 4), they had not drawn the right conclusions from it. The world God created was initially watery chaos, unformed and undeveloped (Gen 1:2). Human life could not have existed if the world were left as it was. The world, however, was “formed” (synestōsa), that is, it took shape, “by God’s word.” Colossians 1:17 is a parallel text in some respects, for there we are told that “all things hold together” (synestēken) in Christ. The physical universe is preserved and maintained by Christ himself (cf. Heb 1:3). Peter emphasized here that the original creation was formed and took shape by God’s word. Dependence on Genesis is obvious since again and again the creation is due to what “God said” (Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 29). The theme is common elsewhere in the Old Testament as well. “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth” (Ps 33:6; cf. Prov 8:27–29; Heb 11:3; and in the postbiblical tradition, Sir 39:17; Wis 9:1; 4 Ezra 6:38, 43).

What is most puzzling about the verse is the statement that the world “was formed out of water and by water.” We could interpret this as if Peter were reflecting on the basic stuff out of which the world is made, as if, like Thales, he were saying that water is the basic element in the world.32 We need to remind ourselves, however, that Peter drew upon Genesis 1 and was not giving a philosophical answer regarding the “stuff” of the universe. We have already noted that in Genesis 1 a watery chaos covers the earth, making life impossible for human beings. In creating the world, God separated the waters by making the expanse of the sky so that the waters were above and below the expanse (Gen 1:6–8). Furthermore, the waters on earth were collected so that dry ground would also exist (Gen 1:9–10). Hence, when Peter said that the world was created “out of water” (ex hydatos), he probably had in mind the emergence of the earth and sky from these waters. Discerning what he meant by the world being formed “by water” (di hydatos) is more difficult. Some think he referred to the rain by which the earth is sustained.33 Peter, however, referred to the creation of the world, not how it keeps going, and so we should reject this idea. Others understand dia locally, so that the idea is that the world was formed in the midst of the waters.34 This is a possibility but represents an unusual definition for the preposition. We should settle, then, for the third option, which is that God used the water as an instrument in forming the world.35 Perhaps Peter stressed water for rhetorical purposes since it is the agent of judgment in the next verse.

B. Argument #2 - Arguments from the Flood: The flood itself is a demonstration of God’s clear intervention. - 6

6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water

3:6 Peter shifted to his second argument supporting God’s intervention in the world. If at creation God introduced stability into the world by separating the waters, during the flood the chaos returned. For the waters were unleashed and the world was destroyed. The false teachers could hardly maintain that the world is marked by regularity, when a flood destroyed human beings. Once again the syntax is puzzling. We begin with the phrase diʾ hōn, translated “by these waters” in the NIV. What the NIV offers is a possible interpretation. The two singular uses of the word “water” in v. 6 function as the antecedent of the plural pronoun according to the NIV. Despite the possibility of this view, it is questionable for two reasons. First, it seems strange that Peter would use the plural since in both instances in v. 5 the term “water” is in the singular. Second, if this view is correct, the verse could be translated literally as follows, “The former world was destroyed through water, being deluged by water.” The repetition of “water” is superfluous in the second instance, suggesting that Peter meant something different in the first clause. Reicke suggests that the antecedent is “the heavens and the earth.”36 Against this it is not evident how the world could be destroyed by the heavens and the earth, unless one sees these as the repository of water. The allusion is so indirect, however, that one doubts whether the readers would make the connection. The view with the least problems is that the plural relative pronoun refers to water and to the word of God, both of which are mentioned in v. 5.37 Peter wanted to emphasize, it seems, that the very same agents that brought order to the world—water and God’s word—were also responsible for its destruction. The flood, according to Peter, was not merely a natural disaster. It was God’s judgment on the world, appointed by his word and effected through water. Some scholars understand “world” (kosmos) here to refer to the heavens and the earth, so that the parallel between the future destruction of the heavens and earth is paralleled here.38 This interpretation is not compelling.39 First, it does not solve the problem to say that the waters “poured through the windows of the firmament to inundate the earth” (see Gen 7:11).40 Water gushing through the windows of the firmament says nothing about the heavens being destroyed. Second, the shift of words from “heavens and earth” to “world” is significant. Peter signaled to us a new referent, less inclusive than the heavens and earth. Third, the argument constructed is analogous, not exact. Peter was not arguing that the destruction in the flood is the same in scope as the future judgment by fire. His point was that the judgment at the flood was comprehensive enough to include the world and functioned as an anticipation of an even greater judgment to come. Fourth, we have already seen in 2:5 that “the ancient world” (archaiou kosmou) and the “world of the ungodly” (kosmō asebōn, both NRSV) refer to the human beings destroyed during the flood. Bauckham is likely correct that “world” here refers to a judgment that affects more than people,41 but it does not follow that it includes the heavens. A judgment of the earth is “cosmic” enough.

The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude C. Conclusions about the Day of the Lord (3:1–13)

The part of biblical history that they are forgetting is the narrative of creation and the flood. First comes creation. The time is “long ago.” The agent is God’s word, which should not surprise us since Gen 1:3–30 repeatedly says, “And God said,” and then notes that the event happened. This theme is picked up in Ps 33:6 (“By the word of the Lord were the heavens made …”); 148:5; Wisd 9:1 (“O God … who has made all things by your word”); Heb 11:3 (“the universe was formed at God’s command” [NIV] or “the worlds were prepared by the word of God” [NRSV]); and numerous other Jewish and Christian writers stretching out into the second century. Indeed, as Neyrey points out, in Philo’s world creative power was seen as one of God’s two powers, the other one being executive power, the authority to rule and judge, which we will encounter in our next verse.20 In other words, our author is defending the orthodox doctrine of God, as it was expressed in his day.

C. Argument #3 - Arguments for Future Judgement:

Since God intervened in history before through His Word, He will execute judgement in the future as declared by His word. - 7

7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

2 Peter & Jude But God Has Intervened before (3:5–7)

In 3:7 Peter applies the lesson from history to the topic of the coming judgment. The word of God that created and destroyed the world long ago can and will destroy the world again. God did it once, he can do it again, and he has promised to do so with warnings that indicate the means of judgment will be fire (Zeph 1:18; 3:8; Mal 4:1; Mt 3:12; 2 Thess 1:7–8; 1 Cor 3:13).

1, 2 Peter, Jude 1. Scoffers Doubt the Coming Day (3:1–7)

3:7 Verse 7 contains Peter’s third argument against the regularity of the world. God intervened at creation (v. 5), at the flood (v. 6), and he will intervene again in the future. The future catastrophe will be like the original creation in that it will include the heavens and the earth. Furthermore, it will parallel God’s work in creation and flood in that it will be accomplished by his word. The instrument of destruction is different in one respect. Instead of using water, God will employ fire. Water cannot be the instrument since God pledged not to destroy the world by means of it again (Gen 9:11–17). The reference to fire is surprising since nowhere else are we told that the world will be destroyed by fire. Some detect Stoic or Iranian influence, but if there is any dependence, it is very indirect. Stoicism expected the world conflagration to be repeated again and again. Peter expected the end to come once.42 Furthermore, the Old Testament itself associates fire with judgment, sometimes at the end of history (Deut 32:22; Ps 97:3; Isa 30:30; 66:15–16; Ezek 38:22; Amos 7:4; Zeph 1:18; Mal 4:1). We should note that the fiery judgments in the Old Testament refer to the judgment of people, not the cosmos. And yet that the world would be destroyed by fire is found in the postbiblical tradition (1QH 3:29–36; Sib. Or. 3:54–90, 4:173–92; 5:211–13, 531; Apoc. Adam 49:3; Josephus, Ant. 1.70). The future destruction of the world was inseparable, in Peter’s mind, from judgment. That day, recalling the day of the Lord of the Old Testament, will be the day of judgment. It will also involve the day of destruction for the ungodly. The false teachers, unless they repented, would realize too late that the judgment was no myth and that God does intervene in the world.

Concluding Applications:

We must be mindful of the roots of our faith.

We need to detect false teaching.

We need to refute doctrinal doubts with God’s Word and clear thinking.